Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2005 1965 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
94 people, organisations and other records · 122 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
OpenAI Preparedness Framework — Version 2 has a disputed assessment of its provision ↓ Whether Version 2’s governance arrangements permit OpenAI Leadership to deploy High-capability models without sufficient safeguards Preparedness Framework v2’s governance arrangements permit OpenAI Leadership to deploy models with High capabilities without safeguards that sufficiently minimize their associated risks. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Question posed by Selekoa Contested
Contested. Competent sources disagree. Evidence on both sides is shown below, and this record does not decide between them.
Supporting evidence: secondary · 1 source; Counterevidence: primary · 2 sources; Context: primary + secondary · 2 sources
Assessed provision Required action · provision ID pf-high-deployment-restriction Subject version Version 2 · Published 2025-04-15 · Effective date not established · Revised 2025-04-15 Date 2025-04-15 · revision Scope and limits Contested assessment of the policy’s permissiveness, not a finding that OpenAI deployed a model without safeguards, a legal ruling or a guarantee of compliance. Coggins et al. (arXiv:2509.24394; v1 2025-09-29, v2 2025-10-13) read the framework’s governance arrangements as letting OpenAI Leadership, the CEO or a person designated by them, approve or reject the Safety Advisory Group’s recommendations and so deploy even more dangerous capabilities, especially if other developers do so. OpenAI’s announcement of Version 2 states that covered systems reaching High capability must have safeguards that sufficiently minimize the associated risk of severe harm before they are deployed, and its ChatGPT agent system card describes the framework as committing it to such safeguards; both predate the analysis and are not replies to it. The record does not decide whether leadership’s authority over the recommendations defeats that stated requirement. The paper’s framework-wide conclusion and OpenAI’s comparison of Version 2 with its predecessor are context. The rule’s own wording is recorded in the provision record for Version 2.
Rests on reporting No primary source supports this record; its supporting passages come from reporting.
The evidence 05 secondary source Context only
The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies ↗ arXiv · 2025-09-29
Archived copy, captured 2025-12-05: The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “We conclude that OpenAI’s April 2025 Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices.” Location in source PDF p. 14, Conclusions, first sentence (arXiv:2509.24394v2; identical in v1)
Machine-checked · 2026-10-03
Source details and check notes Authors Sam Coggins; Alexander K. Saeri; Katherine A. Daniell; Lorenn P. Ruster; Jessie Liu; Jenny L. Davis Version arXiv:2509.24394v2, a preprint: v1 submitted 2025-09-29, v2 revised 2025-10-13. The abstract is quoted from the v2 page; the archived copy is the Internet Archive capture of the unversioned abstract page on 2025-12-05, after v2 was posted. Version date 2025-10-13 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-03 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-12-05: The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies ↗ . Captured 53 days after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-12-05. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-03.Attribution Sam Coggins et al., The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices, arXiv:2509.24394v2 (2025). Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Verbatim excerpt checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-03 against the v2 PDF (arXiv:2509.24394v2, revised 2025-10-13); identical in v1 (2025-09-29), and the paper’s title states the same conclusion. Recorded as context on 2026-10-04: the conclusion is framework-wide and rests also on evaluation scope and Medium capabilities, not only on deployment governance. Human editorial review is pending. secondary source Supports the claim
The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies ↗ arXiv · 2025-09-29
Archived copy, captured 2025-12-05: The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “Key result #3) The Preparedness Framework allows the OpenAI CEO to deploy even more dangerous capabilities, especially if other developers do so.” Location in source PDF p. 11, Results, heading “Key result #3” and the following paragraph (arXiv:2509.24394v2; identical in v1)
Machine-checked · 2026-10-03
Source details and check notes Authors Sam Coggins; Alexander K. Saeri; Katherine A. Daniell; Lorenn P. Ruster; Jessie Liu; Jenny L. Davis Version arXiv:2509.24394v2, a preprint: v1 submitted 2025-09-29, v2 revised 2025-10-13. The abstract is quoted from the v2 page; the archived copy is the Internet Archive capture of the unversioned abstract page on 2025-12-05, after v2 was posted. Version date 2025-10-13 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-03 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-12-05: The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies ↗ . Captured 53 days after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-12-05. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-03.Attribution Sam Coggins et al., The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices, arXiv:2509.24394v2 (2025). Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Verbatim excerpt checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-03 against the v2 PDF (arXiv:2509.24394v2, revised 2025-10-13); identical in v1 (2025-09-29). The following paragraph grounds it in the framework’s provisions that OpenAI Leadership can approve or reject the Safety Advisory Group’s recommendations and can unilaterally bypass them. The authors’ reading of the framework’s governance arrangements: evidence of the disagreement, not of what the framework says or how it is applied. Human editorial review is pending. primary source Context only
Our updated Preparedness Framework ↗ OpenAI · 2025-04-15
Archived copy, captured 2025-04-16: Our updated Preparedness Framework ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “stronger requirements for what it means to “sufficiently minimize” those risks in practice” Location in source Opening, second paragraph, first sentence
Machine-checked · 2026-10-03
Source details and check notes Authors OpenAI Version Dated Version 2 publication announcement Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-04-16: Our updated Preparedness Framework ↗ . Captured 1 day after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-04-16. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-18.Attribution OpenAI, Updating our Preparedness Framework. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Verbatim excerpt (mid-sentence) checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-03 against the live page and the Internet Archive capture of 2025-04-16. OpenAI’s characterisation of its own update, published with the edition. Reclassified as context on 2026-10-04: it compares Version 2 with its predecessor (stronger requirements than before) and is compatible with the critics’ position; it does not say the rule binds OpenAI. Human editorial review is pending. primary source Contradicts the claim
ChatGPT Agent System Card ↗ OpenAI · 2025-07-17
Archived copy, captured 2025-07-17: ChatGPT Agent System Card ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “The framework commits us to track and mitigate the risk of severe harm, including by implementing safeguards that sufficiently minimize the risk for highly capable models.” Location in source PDF p. 16 (printed p. 15), §5 Preparedness Framework, first paragraph, second sentence
Machine-checked · 2026-10-04
Source details and check notes Authors OpenAI Version System card dated 17 July 2025 on its cover. The quoted sentence and its page match the PDF served on 2026-10-04 and the Internet Archive capture of 2025-07-17; the two copies differ only in chart labels. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-04 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-07-17: ChatGPT Agent System Card ↗ . Captured on the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-07-17. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.Attribution OpenAI, ChatGPT Agent System Card (2025-07-17). Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Verbatim excerpt checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-04 against the PDF served by OpenAI and the Internet Archive capture of 2025-07-17 (same page and wording). OpenAI presents the framework as committing it to implement safeguards that sufficiently minimize the risk, corroborating the publisher position stated in the announcement; not independent proof of a guarantee or of effect. It predates Coggins et al. and is not a reply to them; the same section reports that OpenAI applied the rule to this launch, which this record does not assess. Human editorial review is pending. primary source Contradicts the claim
Our updated Preparedness Framework ↗ OpenAI · 2025-04-15
Archived copy, captured 2025-04-16: Our updated Preparedness Framework ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “Covered systems that reach High capability must have safeguards that sufficiently minimize the associated risk of severe harm before they are deployed.” Location in source Bullet “Clarified capability levels”, sentence beginning “Covered systems that reach High capability”
Machine-checked · 2026-10-04
Source details and check notes Authors OpenAI Version Dated Version 2 publication announcement Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-04-16: Our updated Preparedness Framework ↗ . Captured 1 day after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-04-16. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-18.Attribution OpenAI, Updating our Preparedness Framework. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Verbatim excerpt checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-04 against the live page and the Internet Archive capture of 2025-04-16. OpenAI’s stated predeployment requirement, scoped to covered systems that reach High capability: the publisher’s position, not independent evidence of compliance or of whether leadership’s authority can override it. Published with the edition, before the analysis; not a reply to it. Human editorial review is pending. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. Competent sources assess one keyed provision of an exact edition, for example whether it adequately constrains what it governs. The record keeps the assessments on each side and is contested or unresolved, never supported. It is not evidence of what the text says, which the provision record quotes.
Date. Dated by the edition. OpenAI’s announcement was published with it on 2025-04-15 and the ChatGPT agent system card on 2025-07-17; Coggins et al. submitted v1 of their analysis on 2025-09-29 and revised it as v2 on 2025-10-13.
Record ID assessed-preparedness-v2-high-deployment-mitigation